Credible evidence is essential for conviction; significant delays and investigation failures can undermine the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.)

We have heard Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, the learned APP for the State.

2. The sole appellant stands convicted under Section 4 (2) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 376(3) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE vide judgment dated 27.06.2024 passed by learned ADJ-7-cum-Special Judge, POCSO(II), Muzaffarpur in GR No. 80 of 2022 arising out of Kudhani P.S. Case No. 306 of 2022. By order dated 02.07.2024, he has ben sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer SI for two months.

3. A 16 years old girl is said to have been raped by the appellant. The occurrence had taken place on 09.06.2022. However, the victim (PW-2) got a written report lodged on 28.06.2022. The reason ascribed for such delayed lodging of the report is that she chose to file the case only after the appellant elected to make the video which he had captured of the act, viral. It was only then that the FIR was lodged.

4. The Investigator, except for recording the statement of the victim; making some efforts at finding out her age; and seizing her clothes and dispatching it to the forensic laboratory, has done nothing else to justify charge-sheeting the appellant.

5. The Trial Court has examined seven witnesses on behalf of the prosecution including the victim, her parents, her grandfather, the Doctor and the Investigator and one witness on behalf of the defence who has denied that any occurrence of the kind reported by the victim had ever taken place.

6. The Trial Court was made to see a pen-drive but rightly the same was not treated as any evidence as the pen-drive was offered after about five months of the occurrence to the Investigator by the father of the victim without any associated certification for it to be admissible under Section 65B of the EVIDENCE ACT .

7. The conviction and sentence of the appellant has been assailed as unwarranted and untenable for various reasons.

8. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that even the jurisdiction of the Special Court to try him is in doubt. However, no serious objection was raised with respect to the minority of the victim.

9. The other major strand of argument is that there had been an unusual delay in reporting the incident and the explanation offered is in itself doubtful.

10. The medical report and the forensic laboratory reports, though in this case is not very important because of the delay in reporting the matter, also do not even remotely suggest that the allegations are true.

11. The entire prosecution hinges on the victim reporting the matter to the police after she realised that the video of the sexual act between the appellant and her was made viral. If this were the case, then perhaps the first responsibility of the Investigator was to find out the device through which the photo was captured and video was made and was spread through which mobile number.

12. From the evidence on record, we have found that on 09.06.2022, while the parents of the victim were away, attending to some religious ceremony and while the victim was tending to the she-goats of the family, she was raped on the point of dagger. She was also threatened that if she ever spoke about the occurrence to anybo